## Facts

- Orange County and The Irvine Company planned harbor development at Upper Newport Bay involving state-granted tidelands held subject to the public trust and adjacent uplands.
- The County and Irvine executed a land exchange agreement and related dredging and landfill agreements under a special statute authorizing such exchanges if trust purposes would be served.
- The State Lands Commission, for the State, appeared as a real party in interest and supported the agreements’ validity.
- The Orange County Auditor refused to issue a warrant for the County’s share of engineering costs for a soils investigation required by the agreements, asserting the statute and agreements were unconstitutional and violated public trust restrictions.
- Several county residents intervened, arguing the arrangements improperly alienated public-trust tidelands and exceeded permissible limits on removing land from the trust.
- After a lengthy bench trial with extensive evidence and site inspections, the trial court upheld the statute and agreements and issued mandate compelling payment; the auditor and interveners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the enabling statute and the resulting exchange/dredging-fill agreements violated constitutional limits and the public trust doctrine governing tidelands.
2. Whether the transaction was a permissible “exchange” furthering trust purposes or an impermissible alienation of tidelands free of the trust.
3. Whether the tidelands removed from trust control were “a relatively small parcel” in light of the overall project and remaining trust lands.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that the overall plan preserved or furthered public trust uses.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment upholding the enabling statute and all agreements.
- The court held the transaction functioned as a lawful exchange consistent with public trust purposes and did not materially impair navigation, commerce, fisheries, or related public uses.
- The court adopted a project-wide, contextual assessment of whether lands removed from the trust were “relatively small,” rejecting a fixed acreage approach.
- Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the net trust loss was comparatively small and that the plan improved harbor and public recreational use of the remaining tidelands.
- Because the agreements were valid, the auditor’s duty to issue the warrant was ministerial; mandate properly compelled payment of the authorized engineering costs.

## Legal Principles

- Tidelands granted by the state are held in trust for public purposes such as navigation, commerce, fisheries, and related recreation; the trust may not be destroyed or materially impaired.
- The Legislature may authorize a tidelands trustee to exchange a comparatively small portion of trust lands for other lands when the exchange, viewed as a whole, preserves or advances public trust purposes.
- “Relatively small parcel” is evaluated in context—by the quantity and functional importance of lands removed from the trust relative to the entire project and remaining trust resources, not by a rigid numerical limit.
- Appellate review defers to supported trial-court findings on public trust impacts; courts do not reweigh evidence where substantial evidence supports the determination that trust purposes are not plainly violated.
- When a payment is authorized under valid law and agreements, a county auditor may not withhold issuance of a warrant on policy grounds; the duty is ministerial and enforceable by mandate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a legislatively authorized tidelands exchange and related harbor-development agreements because, on a project-wide record, the lands removed from trust control were comparatively limited and the overall plan preserved and improved public trust uses; it therefore compelled the county auditor to issue the payment warrant.


County of Orange v. Heim, 30 Cal. App. 3d 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)